Jack Renshaw (right) with fellow Young BNP official Jack Buckby. Mr Renshaw is now beginning a life sentence in prison for ‘terrorist’ offences; Mr Buckby (who left the BNP in 2013) is now an author and online commentator.

Yesterday Jack Renshaw, a former Young BNP leader, was given a life sentence at the Old Bailey with the recommendation that he should serve at least twenty years.

This was the highest profile case in a series of investigations into National Action, a national-socialist youth group that was banned in December 2016 under the Terrorism Act – the first proscription of a ‘far right’ movement in the UK since 1940.

Despite several attempts, no court has so far accepted the fantasy view of National Action – propagated by the authorities and Hope not Hate – as a sinister terrorist conspiracy. Juries repeatedly rejected the evidence of Hope not Hate whistleblower Robbie Mullen and other state witnesses, and refused to convict any defendants for terrorist conspiracies.

Jack Renshaw was convicted for what seem to have been wholly foolish and impractical statements (made while drunk) that he was going to kill an MP and a policewoman. No ‘conspiracy’ was entered into to bring this about and no feasible murder plan was prepared.

What the whole affair does demonstrate is the danger of “social media culture”.

National Action emerged in 2013 with a mission to liven up the racial nationalist scene. Not only electoral politics but the entire leadership cadre of the movement – from the NF to London Forum to (no doubt) H&D – was dismissed as fuddy-duddy failures whose time had passed.

No doubt there was some truth in this, and if NA had stuck to livening up our movement’s online presentation, and staging occasional headline-grabbing street activities, their contribution would have been welcome.

Unfortunately hubris (and inevitable nemesis) supervened.

Social media demands that racial nationalists become ever more ‘extreme’ in their language and presentation in order to grab attention. This type of ‘extremism’ doesn’t necessarily mean a radical ideology. A good example is Carl Benjamin, aka ‘Sargon of Akkad’. His ‘jokes’ about raping Labour MP Jess Phillips were just the sort of thing that guaranteed success on Facebook or YouTube. Yet in the serious world of electoral politics – as opposed to the lucrative but essentially unserious world of Facebook likes and monetised YouTube videos – Mr Benjamin’s language proved toxic. His candidature is one more albatross round the neck of a dying UKIP.

Other YouTubers have corrupted historical revisionism by associating this method of serious historical enquiry with crudely offensive attacks on Jews.

And inevitably the National Action approach degenerated from deliberately provocative language, to an apocalyptic conspiratorial worldview accompanied by foolish talk about political violence.

Those who engaged in such talk had no actual experience of political violence. For example they had no connection at all with the Loyalist movement in Ulster, where during the past fifty years numerous racial nationalists from mainland Britain have allied with our Ulster brothers in fighting back against the IRA’s murderous terror gangs.

In fact NA was conspicuously opposed to Ulster Loyalism. Those of us with Loyalist friends were dismissed as part of yesterday’s failed leadership.

H&D readers will have the greatest sympathy with the victims of our politicised justice system. Yet we must make clear not only that political violence is foolish and unjustified in a British context, but also that “big talk” on social media is the start of a road to perdition.

It starts with wanting to big-note yourself online, to be more outrageous than anyone else, to be fashionably ‘edgy’. It ends with wasting at least twenty years of your life locked up as a convicted ‘terrorist’.

The new issue (#90) of Heritage and Destiny magazine is now out. The 26 page, May – June 2019 issue, has as its lead:

Councillor Leppert! First British Nationalist Election Gains in a Decade

Issue 90

Contents include:

Editorial – by Mark Cotterill

Local Elections 2019 – For Britain’s Julian Leppert the big winner as most nationalist parties mark time – by Peter Rushton.

A Spectre Haunting Europe – nationalist and populist parties on the march by Peter Rushton.

The Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms at the British Library – by Tony Paulsen.

Double Book Review: After the Reich: From the Fall of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift by Giles MacDonogh, and Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War by R.M. Douglas, reviewed by Ian Freeman.

Old Poet’s Corner: The Crown in the Thorns – by Eddy Morrison – by Eddy Morrison.

Book Review: National Socialism – 30 Fundamental Truths for Kampfer of the 21st Century by Kristof von Kanwetzburg – reviewed by Eddy Morrison.

For the first time in forty years, nationalists have been elected to the Spanish Parliament in Madrid.

On April 28th the new nationalist party Vox won 10.3% of the vote and 24 seats in Spain’s general election.

Vox leader Santiago Abascal

Until recently Spain had one of the most inflexible two-party systems in Europe. Anyone broadly of the right (i.e. who would have supported Franco’s Nationalists during the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War) would vote for the conservative Popular Party. Anyone broadly of the left (i.e. who would have supported the socialist-communist Republicans during the Civil War) would vote for Spain’s Socialist Party PSOE, unless they were from the Catalonian or Basque regions, when they might vote for separatist parties.

Multiple scandals have shattered this duopoly, with the conservative Popular Party the main losers. In this year’s election the PP lost more than half of their parliamentary seats, challenged both by Vox and by a free-market conservative party called Citizens.

For the time being, Vox will have no share in government, which will be dominated by the socialists with support from the far left and separatist parties.

Predictably Vox’s strongest support came in regions that have been most threatened by African immigration. Across Andalusia – where they made their most significant breakthrough in regional elections late last year – Vox polled 13.4% (more than 600,000 votes). In the small city of Ceuta, a Spanish enclave on the North African coast, they were runners-up with 24%.

Santiago Abascal with French nationalist leader Marine Le Pen

This result will give Vox hope of winning MEPs for the first time when Spain holds its European Parliamentary elections on May 26th. It is expected that Vox MEPs will join the anti-immigration bloc headed by Matteo Salvini’s Italian Lega and Marine Le Pen’s renamed National Rally (formerly the National Front).

Richard Edmonds – a Directorate member of the National Front, a party now banned from Facebook

The private company that manages the social-media site Facebook, has just announced that the National Front and its chairman, Tony Martin, together with a number of other nationalist spokespersons and nationalist organisations, BNP, etc. have been banned from the social-media platform.

The pretext given by Facebook is that the Nationalists named and their organisations have spread “hatred”, and have proclaimed “a violent and hateful mission.” This is all lies. It has always been a criminal offence to incite violence and for the last forty years, ever since the Race Act, it has been a criminal offence to promote racial hatred. If any of the individuals named were guilty of either offence then they would have been charged by the judicial authorities, which is not the case. And if any of the nationalist organisations, NF, BNP, etc, had been found to promote violence then they would have been closed down as was National Action, But none of the organisations named by Facebook have been closed down by the Authorities.

This action by the private company which owns and manages Facebook, and which has a near monopoly of the social-media, represents a tyranny answerable to nobody. The older ones of us can remember a time when we were told that Britain fought two world wars to guarantee Freedom of Speech. Not any more.

But friends, take heart. This banning is a form of back-handed compliment. Clearly it is recognised that Nationalists and only Nationalists are the true and only opposition to Mass-immigration and to the multi-criminal nightmare-society being forced onto us.

H&D comments:

Apart from the NF and BNP, Facebook have also banned (yet again) former BNP leader Nick Griffin, and his former young friend Paul Golding (now leader of the tiny Britain First group), and Paul’s former girlfriend/deputy leader Jayda Fransen; Paul Ray, a founder member of the a nut-group called Knights Templar International; former fundraiser for the BNP and Britain First Jim Dowson; Jack Renshaw, a former BNP Youth leader, who was linked to the proscribed NS Youth organisation National Action (although how young Jack can get onto Facebook to chat to his young friends from solitary confinement in HMP Belmarsh is not known!) and last but surely not least former BNP member and EDL leader Steven Yaxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson).

Nick Griffin modelling Knight Templar merchandise – both Griffin and the Knights Templar have now been banned from Facebook, whose policies mirror Griffin’s own attempts to silence racial nationalists more than a decade ago.

All very sad – right? But why on earth should this come as a shock to nationalists? Facebook is well and truly part (and a big part at that) of the liberal, multi-racial liberal establishment, who are our enemies, they are against everything we stand for and hold dear, so why would they give us a platform on THEIR social-media?

Although most nationalists will probably not agree with us now, these bans may be a good thing – in the long term anyway – if they get our young (and not so young) would-be activists away from their bedrooms and their computers, laptops and smart phones, where they spend so much time on social-media, talking to people who all agree with them anyway, and back onto the streets to do some real political work. Work rebuilding the former nationalist strongholds on the council estates of Burnley, Blackburn, Stoke, Sandwell, Essex and many others, which Griffin and co destroyed ten years ago.

One last interesting point regarding Facebook’s statement of the bans on British nationalists – and I quote:“Individuals and organisations who spread hate, or attack or call for the exclusion of others on the basis of who they are, have no place on Facebook. Under our dangerous individuals and organisations policy, we ban those who proclaim a violent or hateful mission or are engaged in acts of hate or violence. The individuals and organisations we have banned today violate this policy, and they will no longer be allowed a presence on Facebook or Instagram. Posts and other content which expresses praise or support for these figures and groups will also be banned. Our work against organised hate is ongoing and we will continue to review individuals, organisations, pages, groups and content against our community standards.”

If this is the case, then why has Facebook not banned the pages of Sinn Fein – the political wing of the terrorist IRA? Or the Irish Republican Socialist Party – the political wing of the terrorist INLA who murdered Tory MP Airey Neave amongst many others; the 32 County Sovereignty Movement – the political wing of the terrorist group Real IRA – and dozens of other Irish Republican/Marxist hate groups?

Members of the Real IRA – whose political front the 32 County Sovereignty Movement is not banned from Facebook

Why indeed, we may well ask. These are real hate groups – groups who hate everything British and English. Groups who hate with a passion our Ulster-Scots cousins and have carried out a murderous campaign against them and us since the late 1960s. These are hate groups who still carry out real acts of violence (as was seen in Londonderry yesterday).

Yet just like with the many hateful Wahhabi Muslim / Jihadist pages that Facebook lets continue without any problem, they refuse to ban any of these Irish Republican terror groups. It makes you think, don’t it.

The 29th March was meant to be the day Great Britain left the hated European Union. The Prime Minister, Mrs. Theresa May, had promised in Parliament no less than 106 times that the 29th would be the day we leave. What a lie. What a deception. What a betrayal. A day of Infamy when May’s Tory government was exposed as totally lacking all honour, honesty and principle.

Brexit demonstrators in Westminster, March 29th 2019

But what did people expect from Parliament ? Three quarters of the MP’s voted Remain at the Referendum in 2016; Mrs. May herself voted Remain at the Referendum. The vast majority of Members of Parliament are committed Globalists and Internationalists who each year give billions of pounds of our money to ungrateful Third World countries.

Against the will of the British people they have brought millions of ungrateful Third Worlders into our country, including muggers, child-rapists, benefit-fraudsters and terrorists. The vast majority at Westminster clearly have no love for Britain and care nothing for the welfare and interests of the British people. Tory governments, Labour governments, Tory Liberal-Democrat coalition governments have turned our major cities into permanent crime and riot zones where no self-respecting Briton would want to live or raise a family.

Theresa May’s Tory party has spent the last two years lying to the British people. It is clear that the plan has always been that we will not leave the European Union. The party politicians at Westminster want us locked in for ever. The party politicians despise the British people. They think that they can thwart the wishes and ignore the seventeen million plus British patriots who cast the biggest vote in our history when they voted to LEAVE at the Referendum.

We in the National Front have always warned the British people that the politicians of the old failure parties, will ALWAYS betray us. Tory, Labour, Liberal makes no difference, they are the same and they will always betray us. It is time now for the seventeen million Brexit voters and all patriots to focus on the seriousness of Britain’s situation. We are ruled by traitors who despise us. No more fudging, let us all face the grim truth because together we can win. Only the principles and policies of the National Front will save the British people.

On a cold, wet and windy Saturday (16th March 2019) the spirits of German nationalists and campaigners for Truth in History were high as they held a successful public rally in the centre of the historic German city of Brandenburg. Richard Edmonds reports.

Ursula Haverbeck in discussion with her lawyer Wolfram Nahrath during court proceedings in November 2016

On a cold, wet and windy Saturday (16th. March 2019) the spirits of German nationalists and campaigners for Truth in History were high as they held a successful public rally in the centre of the historic German city of Brandenburg. Richard Edmonds reports. Standing in the public square amongst crowds of shoppers, with the trams rattling past and with a hundred Lefties positioned just across the street, some forty strong Nationalists campaigned for the release of German patriots jailed for questioning the so-called “Holocaust”. From the nationalist ranks, speaker after speaker denounced the injustice of jailing men and women for the “crime” of asking questions. The high point of our demonstration came when one of the young women supporters read out the message written by the brave Ursula Haverbeck. Frau Ursula Haverbeck recently “celebrated” her ninetieth birthday in her prison cell in Bielefeld jail. Last year Frau Haverbeck was sentenced to multiple years of imprisonment. Her “offence” ? She had asked, Did the “Holocaust” really take place ? The success of our demonstration was confirmed when the local regional television in its evening news programme reported on our “Free political dissidents” campaign. The TV station showed a still photo (above) of our activity together with the broadcast of a two minute rant made by the City mayor (“Christian-Democrat”) happily standing amongst the antifa counter-protesters.

The veteran British Nationalist, Richard Edmonds, took part in the demonstration. Herewith the translation of his contribution:

Richard Edmonds addresses last weekend’s demonstration in Brandenburg

Dear German friends, my name is Richard Edmonds. I am British.

A few years back a group of us travelled to Brandenburg-Havel in order to show solidity with you at the rally that was held in support of Horst Mahler. Mahler had been locked up in the Brandenburg jail for disputing the so-called “Holocaust”. It is appalling that years later this man who lives for the Truth and who campaigns for the Honour of Germany should be still locked up in prison. The man is 83 years of age, he is suffering from Diabetes, as a result of which both feet have had to be amputated; and still he is not released.

When we were previously here, one of the speakers on behalf of Mahler was the very brave Ursula Haverbeck. Now the ninety year-old Frau Haverbeck is herself in jail in the Bielefeld prison. We all know that the Heroine Ursula Haverbeck has campaigned untiringly for years for the Truth and for the Honour of Germany.

And so have many others. For example, the lady-lawyer, Frau Sylvia Stolz was also jailed for years in the German Federal Republic, because she too campaigned for Justice and Honour. Frau Stolz was the Defence-lawyer for the German-Canadian, Ernst Zundel, who in the year 2003 was accused in the German courts of “Holocaust”-denial. Zundel’s trial became notorious: the judge in the case, Dr. Ulrich Meinerzhagen, found himself obliged in open court to announce that, and I quote: ”It is completely irrelevant whether the Holocaust took place or not. Denial of the Holocaust is a criminal offence and that is all that matters in this court.” As a result of her energetic defence of her client, Ernst Zundel, Frau Stolz was condemned to several years of imprisonment. Zundel himself was jailed for five years at the Mannheim prison. The pair of them are Heroic patriots.

(left to right) Günter Deckert, Sylvia Stolz, and Lady Michèle Renouf following the release of Frau Stolz from a prison sentence

The former senior-school teacher, Gunter Deckert, was condemned to years of imprisonment because he too campaigned and campaigns for the Honour of Germany. The case of Gunter Deckert reveals exactly what is at stake here: in its commentary to Deckert’s case, the major German newspaper, the Frankfuther Allegemeine Zeitung wrote, and I quote:

“Were Deckert’s view (interpretation, understanding, grasp = ‘Auffassung’ in the origin) of the Holocaust to be correct, then it would follow that the German Federal Republic would be based on a lie. Every speech made by the President of the Republic, every commemorative minute’s silence, every history book, would be based on a lie. In so far as Deckert denies the murder of the Jews, he challenges the legitimacy of the German Federal Republic.” Frankfurther Allgemeine Zeitung of August 1994.

Dear Friends, I would like to say here that you are not alone. World-wide you have admirers for your campaign for the historical Truth. For example, the British historian, David Irving, had to stand trial in Vienna for what Irving had said earlier about the Auschwitz camp. Irving was condemned by the Austrian court to three years’ imprisonment. Last year in London, the world-famous French historian, Professor Robert Faurisson gave an hour-long talk before a large and enthusiastic audience over his epoch-making research into the “Holocaust”.

As a guest here in Germany, I cannot do more than quote the former judge of the German Constitutional court, Judge Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem: “I would not make Holocaust-denial a criminal offence,”: Judge Hoffmann-Riem, as quoted in the Tagesspiegel of the 10th. July 2008.

Finally, friends, as a foreigner here I can only say that one bows the head before such German Heriones and Heroes who have had to suffer for years because of their love for their Fatherland.

A controversial report by a Reuters journalist led to an official reaction from the organisers of a Nationalist rally in the Bulgarian capital Sofia. Mirko Savage reports:…….Reuters, one of the leading news agencies worldwide, have retracted part of their news report about a Nationalist demonstration held in Bulgaria on February 16th, 2019. The torchlit rally, known as the “Lukov March”, honours the memory of General Hristo Lukov, the Bulgarian patriot and hero from the First World War.

Lukov was the leader of the Union of Bulgarian National Legions, which was the most powerful patriotic organisation in the 1930’s. Because of his activities as a Nationalist and his ties to prominent high rank German officials of the era he was killed by a communist assault group on 13th of February, 1943.

In the initial version of the report, written by Angel Krasimirov, a Bulgarian Reuters reporter, participants of the event were described as being “… Mostly young man in dark clothing, many bearing swastikas and making the Nazi salute.”

Several days after the publication of the Reuters news report a representative of the organisers of the Lukov March contacted Krasimirov by telephone asking him for proof positive of his description of march participants being, “Mostly young man in dark clothing, many bearing swastikas and making the Nazi salute” as stated in his report.

The journalist was kindly reminded that these were serious accusations that needed to be proven, as such acts are considered a crime according to article 108 (1) of the Bulgarian Penal Code.

Krasimirov claimed that he personally witnessed the above-mentioned people, symbols and actions while walking around different locations in downtown Sofia BEFORE the rally had even started. He however admitted he didn’t have any actual photo or video evidence that could prove his claims. Nevertheless
the damage had already been done, as the original version of the
article had by now been read by thousands on the Reuters web site and
had also been quoted by several other online news websites worldwide
such as News Yahoo, Business Insider and the Times of Israel.After
being contacted by the Nationalist representative, Krasimirov,
(following the standards of the media that he works for), slightly
edited his report later that same day.Corrections can be seen HERE (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bulgaria-farright-march/far-right-activists-stage-torchlit-march-in-bulgarian-capital-idUSKCN1Q50PG)

The author admitted that the initial version of paragraph 3 of his article could easily have misled readers but he went on to claim that this had not been his purpose.

However he is still unable to prove in any way that there were people “who wore shirts emblazoned with swastikas and made the Nazi salute at several places before the start of the march in downtown Sofia”, a claim that still remains in Krasimirov’s partially corrected version. No photos or videos of such where ever taken. Nor was he able to prove that such people (if there even were any) had participated in the torchlit march as well.

Remember that the Lukov March itself had been heavily guarded by around 700 police officers. Police cameras had filmed the whole event and the state prosecutor was on duty that day monitoring the marchers for the use of any forbidden symbols or slogans. At least a dozen domestic and international TV channels were present, as well as many other journalists and photo reporters too. There was not a single incident or one official complaint before, during or after the march.

In a statement, Zvezdimir Andronov, Chairman of the Bulgarian National Union, who were the organisers of the torchlit Lukov March rally, pointed out that, “A case such as this can only serve as an example of how the mainstream mass media try to portray the people who attend Nationalist rallies in Bulgaria and across Europe. We will not tolerate any attempt at spreading unproven information towards us and our fellow supporters”.

Not without reason, Dr Pearce speculates that the new film will amount to “Wormtongue’s revenge”, and will seek to impose homosexual/bisexual themes that have nothing to do with Tolkien’s life and work.

H&D is not a religious journal and we do not concern ourselves with questions of personal morality or the private lives of individuals.

However it is interesting to read Dr Pearce’s article in the context of last year’s speech by Marion Maréchal Le Pen (granddaughter of French National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen) to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an event where H&D used to be represented before the usual suspects ensured that our editor Mark Cotterill was excluded from the USA!

Marion Maréchal (as she now likes to be known to avoid confusion with her aunt Marine Le Pen), presented a challenge to Anglo-American conservative assumptions, which for at least the past couple of centuries have tended to be based on individualism.

Denouncing what she termed the “reign of egoism”, she pointed out:

“Today, even children have now become merchandise. We hear now in the public debate, we have the right to order a child from a catalog, we have the right to rent a woman’s womb, we have the right to deprive a child of a mother or father. No you don’t! A child is not a ‘right’. Is this the freedom that we want? No. We don’t want this atomized world of individuals without gender, without fathers, without mothers, and without nation.”

One doesn’t have to be a Catholic – or even a Christian – to get their point, nor does one have to be a racial nationalist. These ideas would be familiar academically to anyone who has read the works of Max Weber or R.H. Tawney (the latter was an Anglo-Catholic socialist).

Tolkien of course was a lifelong Catholic, and one of the underlying themes of The Lord of the Rings is the rejection of selfish power-seeking in favour of traditional community values – the values of the Shire as opposed to the values of Mordor.

H&D readers will justifiably fear that such values will either be absent or treated with postmodern contempt in the forthcoming Tolkien film.

Yesterday in Southwark Crown Court, Alison Chabloz was again found guilty of posting “grossly offensive” YouTube videos, in contravention of the Communications Act 2003. This reaffirmed the verdict of District Judge John Zani, sitting last May in Marylebone Magistrates Court, who had found Chabloz guilty on three charges of “sending grossly offensive communications via a public communications network”.

So for Ms Chabloz, the outcome of her “appeal” (actually a full retrial of the facts, rather than an appeal on points of law), was unchanged. She (or rather her donors) will probably face a heavy costs bill for having pursued an unsuccessful retrial – especially after the prosecution instructed a QC for this retrial – but otherwise exactly the same verdict and sentence.

For UK historical revisionists and political activists, however, this week’s Crown Court judgment is far more serious.

He wrote: “This is not the case with the findings of a Crown Court. It is not impossible that should in February Ms. Chabloz lose her appeal at Southwark Crown Court, then her case, involving as it does elements of the so-called ‘Holocaust’, could be used as a legal precedent to launch criminal prosecutions against Historical revisionists by the back-door, so to speak, in the absence of any formal laws in Britain banning ‘Holocaust’-denial.”

Mr Edmonds (and H&D) were severely criticised for these observations. Ms Chabloz’s right-hand-woman – a Hungarian lady who uses the name ‘Sophie Johnson’ – sent Mr Edmonds an impertinent email calling him a “dotard” who had produced “stupid burblings” and “ugly bile”.

For more than thirty years, Jewish lobby groups have been frustrated that the UK has stood apart from a general European trend towards criminalising ‘Holocaust’ revisionism, which they like to term ‘Holocaust denial’. In one form or another, most European countries outlaw the expression or publication of views which dare to question the established historical orthodoxy: that six million Jews were killed, mostly in homicidal gas chambers and mostly in concentration camps, during the Second World War, on the orders of Adolf Hitler and other senior figures in Germany’s National Socialist government.

Professor Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter were targetted by London’s Jewish lobbyists in 1991.

In November 1991 for example – as revealed last month by H&D – a British government document prepared for then Prime Minister John Major in advance of a confidential meeting with leaders of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, stated that Anglo-Jewish leaders were wishing to prevent a visit to London by leading revisionists Prof. Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter. The document added: “they are concerned that the UK may become the focal point for holocaust revisionism because of its being outlawed in other European countries and because the American revisionist organisation, The Institute of Historical Review, is facing financial problems.”

Fred Leuchter was duly arrested and deported from the UK, but there was no legal means of excluding Prof. Faurisson (a dual French-British citizen), and despite continual lobbying there has never been any anti-revisionist law in this country.

In 2008 there was an attempt to ban revisionism via the backdoor method of the European Arrest Warrant system. German authorities issued an EAW leading to the arrest of Australian revisionist Dr Fredrick Toben, who was seized from a plane while in transit at London’s Heathrow airport and locked up in Brixton prison awaiting extradition to Germany, where he would have faced imprisonment for ‘crimes’ that are not illegal in this country.

After the last-minute mobilisation of a legal team by Lady Michèle Renouf (acting on timely information from Dr David Duke) the authorities’ attempt to extradite Dr Toben was blocked. This meant it was impossible for European courts to extradite Bishop Richard Williamson or other historical revisionists living in Britain, such as the French author Vincent Reynouard.

Solicitor Kevin Lowry-Mullins outside the City of London Magistrates’ Court during the successful action to overturn a European Arrest Warrant against Dr Fredrick Toben in 2008.

During parliamentary discussion of the European Arrest Warrant system, several well-informed members of the House of Lords had criticised European laws restricting free historical research. Israeli-funded lobbies realised it would be difficult to pass a UK version of such laws through Parliament, and that even making the attempt might cause unwelcome scrutiny of the entire Holocaust story.

Time for Plan B.

In the UK, law can be made either through Parliamentary statute or through case-law precedent. In most cases of Holocaust revisionism, it is difficult to obtain a conviction using the race laws, since they demand evidence either that the words concerned were intended to stir up racial hatred, or that in all the relevant circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up.

Sometimes an element of ‘Holocaust denial’ can be bundled in with a wider set of charges against a ‘racist’ publication, as was the case in 1998 when Nick Griffin and Paul Ballard were convicted at Harrow Crown Court for editing and publishing a magazine called The Rune. But in most cases this avenue would have little chance.

Jewish activists looked instead at the Communications Act, which is the latest version of a law dating back before the Second World War, and originally intended to criminalise “grossly offensive” telephone calls. There is a technical legal question as to whether this law even applies to the internet (and in particular to YouTube), but assuming prosecutors could succeed with that technical argument, all they needed was a form of historical revisionism that could plausibly be portrayed as “grossly offensive”.

Enter Alison Chabloz, a cruise-ship singer with no background in revisionism, or any other form of historical research. (Her political activism had previously been limited to the fringes of Corbynite Labour, and even there she could hardly be described as active or at all significant.)

A couple of Chabloz’s anti-Zionist songs were posted on YouTube in 2016, attracting complaints from the Campaign Against Antisemitism, a charity funded by Jews who believed their community’s leadership was too ‘soft’ on their enemies. CAA pursued a private prosecution, but at this early stage it seemed possible that the case could be won. Brave lawyers agreed to take on Chabloz’s defence, despite the pittance paid by legal aid and the bad publicity they would attract.

During 2017 and 2018 Chabloz repeatedly damaged her own defence, for example by uploading an additional song (while on bail) which was both non-revisionist, or even anti-revisionist, in singing about soap, lampshades and other long-discredited aspects of the Holocaust myth; and more blatantly “grossly offensive” within the meaning of the Communications Act, since the words suggested that one should wish that Jewish children had indeed been turned into soap, lampshades, etc.

As her trial proceeded early in 2018, Chabloz launched an extraordinary tirade against her own sole defence witness Peter Rushton. After she received a light sentence at Marylebone Magistrates, she decided to escalate the case at a higher legal level. The only thing this was likely to achieve was to establish a precedent that (in certain circumstances) criminalises Holocaust denial in the UK.

And so it has turned out, much to the delight of Gidon Falter and his backers. There was even a veteran of the 43 Group on hand in the public gallery to mark the occasion. (This was a Jewish criminal gang who specialised in violent attacks on British nationalist meetings in the late 1940s.)

Notorious Jewish gangster Jack Spot was among the Jewish thugs who attacked lawful British natonalist events in the 1930s and 1940s. A veteran of the ’43 Group’ gang was present to celebrate the Zionist victory in Southwark Crown Court this week.

So where do we now stand.

The good news is that this week’s judgment is not a blanket ban on Holocaust denial. Judge Hehir and his colleague write:
“it is important to bear in mind, as Mr Davies [Chabloz’s barrister Adrian Davies] understandably stresses, that there is no crime of Holocaust denial in this jurisdiction. Material which consists of or includes Holocaust denial can only found liability under section 127 [of the Communications Act] if it is grossly offensive. No type of speech, Holocaust denial included, can be characterised as grossly offensive per se: the question of whether particular speech is grossly offensive is always fact-specific.”

Later in the judgment, it is confirmed that:
“we emphasise that anti-Semitism is not a crime, just as Holocaust denial is not. Nor can the fact that somebody is a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite prove that anything she writes or sings is grossly offensive. However her anti-Semitism and her attitude to the Holocaust are in our judgment highly relevant to her state of mind so far as her musical compositions are concerned.”

Jewish activist Deborah Lipstadt and her legal team celebrate after their partial legal victory over British historian David Irving in 2001

Here we move to the bad news. Where this week’s judgment does break new ground is in the bald statement:
“no tribunal of fact is required to proceed on the basis of absurdity or fiction. The Holocaust – by which we mean the systematic extermination of millions of people, predominantly though not exclusively Jews, by the forces of Nazi Germany and their collaborators, between 1941 and 1945 – happened. World War II is surely the best documented and most extensively studied period of modern history, and the Holocaust is one of the best documented aspects of that conflict, if not the best. A mass of evidence, of various kinds, attests to it. Moreover the Holocaust has been the subject of extensive judicial enquiry, from the Nuremberg Trials onwards, in a number of jurisdictions.”

This week’s judgment quotes the ruling in a civil rather than criminal judgment from 2001 (a libel case between British historian David Irving and his American critic Deborah Lipstadt) to the effect that:
“no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.”

Judge Hehir and his colleague for the first time enshrine this conclusion in a criminal judgment:
“We therefore take judicial notice of the fact that the Holocaust occurred. We agree with Mr Mulholland QC for the prosecution that the undoubted historical fact of the Holocaust represents part of the context in which these songs must be judged.”

The judgment will be closely analysed by lawyers in the coming weeks, and we should bear in mind that (so far) the precedent is ‘persuasive’ rather than ‘binding’. If the case proceeds further then on certain points of law a ‘binding’ precedent could be set, which would of course be even worse news!

However at first sight it seems that revisionists – even in the UK – have now been placed in one respect in an equivalent position to their German colleagues. Just as the German courts refuse even to consider revisionist arguments, a British criminal court now (for the first time) regards the “historical fact of the Holocaust” as “undoubted” – or as the German courts put it, “manifestly obvious”.

It has always been the case that revisionists (just like racial nationalists) have had to take care that their words would not be seen as likely to “incite racial hatred”.

But now the criminal bar has been substantially lowered. Revisionism no longer needs to incite hatred to be prosecutable, it can merely be “grossly offensive” – and it is accepted that anything deemed grossly offensive to Jews should be deemed by the law as grossly offensive to the general public.

The effect of the Chabloz case has therefore been to shift the goalposts considerably to the benefit of organised Jewry and International Zionism, and much to the detriment of free historical research. The only reason why any aspect of this case this has become a ‘persuasive’ legal precedent, endangering both native Britons and fugitive European revisionists, is that Ms Chabloz’s vanity (or worse) caused her to escalate the case above the level of Magistrates’ Court where it would otherwise have remained. Richard Edmonds (and the anonymous author of an article circulated in 2017 by Agence Bocage) are fully vindicated by this week’s developments.

This week’s disaster is arguably even worse. Alison Chabloz has succeeded in criminalising revisionism (at least in certain circumstances). Those (including at one time ourselves at H&D) who have afforded her financial and other assistance should examine their consciences.